Search results

No, not really. There's a big difference between legal license and being considerate. It's takes an empty or ill-defined ethical compass to equate them exactly. I'll give to an example. I box. I've signed an injury waiver. If I get hit hard, I'm not allowed to take legal action. I have agreed...

And if you had no effectively open content and told me I should let my stuff be wiki'd, I wouldn't think you had a leg to stand on, either.

Of course not. But you can hold him *responsible* for his *response* to those decisions. See, it makes sense linguistically! Nah, if your name's on something you should reconcile it with your public statements. It is incumbent on you to do so, especially when you make the kind of proposal he...

When you believe in something, you're supposed to *do* something besides talk. Inaction does matter, and it's fair to point it out. Even so, that doesn't mean Mike did anything wrong. A lack of high ground =/= being lower than everyone else.

I never meant to imply he had the final word. Do I think he probably could have had a bunch of it opened up? Pretty much. But I doubt the idea was even on his mind at the time. Design is on Design Time. Internet is on Internet Time. What I'm saying is that a guy who produces a lot of...

We're talking about a company that probably had less than 5 employees, not a vast corporation ruled by unchangeable draconian policy. I would call the idea that Mike had no way to influence this . . . unlikely. Anyway, there's always been a divide between people who believe open source is a...

Mike's a great guy, but given Iron Heroes' OGC declaration, he has no moral high ground at all.

Reading blogs from WotCers, the ideological justification seems to be that we were all Bad People who didn't just make adventures and critters to support the core rules like we were supposed to, so they had to take it away. Y'know? So be it. They're not obligated to give away stuff. It's...

I believe in people's IP rights. Nevertheless, I have no intention of being a contracted, occasionally paid snitch a la 10.3.

Like much of Underwire, it's social marketing content. It shouldn't be taken particularly seriously as journalism. The purpose of the article is to mention D&D in a positive light on a PageRank 9 website in a format that will generate social media connections.

This just pushes the subjectivity back a few rungs to "entertainment" and "excitement." Really, it is possible to demand, as a basic prerequisite, the premise that players should have the capacity to making decisions, because if you don't enjoy that, the RPG form can't accommodate you. We can...

A good theory needs the creator to do the following: 1) Admit Incompleteness Instead of trying to vacuum everything up and define it, you're better off identifying the heart of what you want to talk about and admitting that you can't bring everything under one banner. Trying to do everything...

Your game store is probably not unpleasant because they're bad people, or incompetent. Your game store is probably unpleasant because you, the RPG consumer, usually represent their least profitable segment, with the least crossovers between segments. Asking to be catered to specifically is kind...

You do realize that this is throughout the life of the brand, encompassing an unknown percentage of the brand's properties, don't you? Now I don't think the brand or even the RPG is doing badly, as the last annual report I read from Hasbro (I think it was for 2005 or 2006) specifically mentioned...

There's no difference, really. Orcus saying "I won't kill you if you go to the haunted house," in no way bars the dwarf from trying to kill Orcus instead and Orcus killing him, which is the same dead/not dead choice that existed before, and you said *wasn't* railroading -- except of course that...

See previous post. There is little difference between a magical wall made of GM whim making sure you you can't go to Myth Drannor and Elminister doing the same thing, except that there are game systems in place that detail how Elminster totally takes over your agenda.

I've heard it used quite often in discussions of the WoD and the Realms when it comes to the GM using powerful NPCs within the system and setting. FR and WoD games make it a trivial matter for a GM to impose his or her will through an NPC without breaking any written rules in the slightest. When...

It's a good thing I'm not rejecting anybody's definition, then. I'm merely seeing if they're consistent with other statements.

If you throw someone in a box with situation and they'll die or something of they don't resolve it, it's an unambiguous use of force to set up a situation the GM desires. The player's choices proceed from what s/he's given, so any option is basically what the GM allowed. Whether this is...

Based on a script.